What logic fallacies do these arguments make use of?

If anyone is good at detecting logical fallacies, can you please point them out in the following arguments?

Two people are having a conversation, person A and person B.

Person A thinks they might fall under the realm of alien communications/telepathy, etc., but they haven't been 'abducted' as far as they know, however they still feel they meet some of the same criteria that abductees experienced. They know they are communicated with, however they are not sure if who is communicating with them are aliens, spirits, etc.

Person B, wanting to help, feels Person A is schizophrenic.

Person A and B get into a conversation.

Person A says he is 99% sure a particular thought in his head wasn't his own. He also, in the course of the conversation says that a statistic states that 1% of the population has experienced some type of alien abduction.

Person B makes a comment that isn't it funny that 1% of the population has experienced some type of alien abduction and 1% of the population are schizophrenic.

Person B, after being frustrated, knowing that some type of fallacy was just used against him, then goes to the Internet and does some more research. He finds that the the number of abductions is really 2% or higher, and that schizophrenia is really somewhere between .5% and 1%. So these figures he quoted are actually not very close to the truth. Person A was wrong in quoting his figures from faulty memory, and person B apparently made some kind of logical fallacies to connect person A to schizophrenia.

Can anyone tell me and point out the logical fallacies used in this conversation?

Here is another frequent argument that person B makes.

If person A is really being communicated with by spirits or aliens, then perhaps schizophrenia medication will help block the pathways in the mind and prevent the aliens or spirits from communicating with them. In other words, they recommend prescription medication as a counter to aliens or spirits.

Can you point out the logical fallacies in that as well?